No.
They should be able to defend themselves if they so chose.
If they do nothing except repeatedly post annoyences then yes. <hr /></blockquote>
Perhaps this can be left to the discretion of the mod. If the bannee (is there such a word?) is continuing to exhibit the type of behaviour that caused the members to want to ban him/her in the first place -then the posting privilegies could be revoked at the discretion of the mods. If the member wants to speak their piece and try to influence the outcome of the poll, then they should have the right to do so. I for one don't think it is right to put a gag on the bannee unless they are plain disruptive. I see this as the same as in a court of law; you have the right to defend yourself against your accuser, but if you don't play by the rules the judge have the right to gag you.
Okay, so the mods are both accusers and executors in this model, but they aren't judges -that's what the members are. Allowing mods to temporary gag disruptive behaviour seems resonable, assuming that you trust the mods. Now, you can always vote to remove a mod if you find that they aren't evenhanded and reasonable and apply the rules fairly and equally. To me, this seems like a good compromise. Perhaps you can offer another point of view or suggestion?
